No, it shows that Zen 4 isn't fundamentally inefficient. If there existed a 7950, that would've been ideal. Sadly, AMD doesn't make one, so we either look to the fastest non-X 7000-series model, which is the 7900, or we need to look at benchmarks like Anandtech's or Computerbase's, where they configured a lower TDP in the BIOS.You showed the 7900 that has no 5900 counterpart so what exactly are you showing there other than overclocking makes efficiency bad?
BTW, there is a 5900 (non-X).
First, I'm sure you're aware that AM4 has lower power limits than AM5. Consequently, the 5900X is much more limited than the 7900X. Therefore, the 5900X isn't as far outside of its sweet spot as the 7900X.the 5900x which in your words has worse efficiency since it's an X part, having the exact same efficiency as the overclocked 7900 non-x part....
In more general terms, you shouldn't expect X to mean the exact same thing or have the exact same impacts across generations. It's common sense, really. Maybe not to trolls...
You're not understanding what I said before, which is that I only needed to show that Zen 4 offers a significant performance improvement in at least one case. It needn't be the same case in which it offers an efficiency benefit. That was never stipulated.And 45% above the 5900x result would be 31000 points which needs the 7900 non-x to be overclocked to still not quite reach.
The assertion you claim to be challenging is one that was imagined by no one but yourself.Hey, all I have to do is show even one case where that's not true, in order to invalidate the assertion.
If part of the statement is untrue, then the whole statement is invalidated."Zen 4 is a relatively small gain over Zen 3 for a much higher cost"
You keep cutting that last part out to move the goalpost.
You created your own definition of "cost". Moreover, why are you trying to compare the performance of Zen 4 @ 65 (88) W with Zen 3 at 105 (141) W? That's by no means a sensible comparison!You showed that it has better performance I showed that the cost for it is much higher.